Ex Parte Shima

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 14, 2005

09047396 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 14, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 43
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TOSHIHIRO SHIMA
_____________
Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before OWENS, GROSS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-32,
which are all of the claims in the application.
THE INVENTION
The appellant claims an image information input-output
device, a method for operating the device, and a program
recording medium for performing input-output processing of image
information. Claim 1, which claims the device, is illustrative:
Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
2
1. An image information input-output unit comprising:
a hypertext information retrieval environment;
image processing means for processing of image
information based on a control information;
management means for managing an URL information, which
is recordable in the hypertext information retrieval
environment, and said control information in correspondence
with each other, said URL information having a function of
designating a plural of setting values simultaneously;
conversion means for looking up in said management
means based on the entered URL information and converting
the URL information into the predetermined control
information; and
control means for controlling operation of said image
processing means based on the control information into which
the retrieval information is converted by said conversion
means.
THE REFERENCES
Venkatraman et al. (Venkatraman) 5,956,487 Sep. 21, 1999
(filed Oct. 25, 1996)
Hanson 6,148,346 Nov. 14, 2000
(filed Jun. 20, 1996)
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Venkatraman in view of Hanson.
Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
3
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection.
Venkatraman discloses (col. 2, lines 13-26):
A solution for providing widely accessible, low
cost, and enhanced user interface functions for a
device is disclosed. The solution involves embedding
web access functionality into the device including a
web server that provides a device web page. The device
includes an embedded network interface that enables
access to the device web page by a web browser. A user
of the web browser accesses the user interface
functions for the device through the device web page.
The web server functionality may be implemented with
existing circuitry in a device, such as an
exiting [sic] processor, memory, and input/output
circuitry that normally perform device-specific
functions, thereby avoiding the extra cost and space
required for dedicated web server hardware for the
device.
Hanson seeks to create a single device driver that provides
communication between any host computer system and any peripheral
device (col. 4, lines 6-9). The device driver has an operating
system (OS) independent device driver portion and an OS specific
driver portion (col. 3, lines 28-30; col. 4, lines 23-25). The
OS independent device driver portion includes information
regarding peripheral device operation and peripheral specific
data objects, and may include graphical user interface (GUI)
objects (col. 4, lines 46-49). The OS specific device driver
Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
4
portion is the two-way translating communication layer between
the OS of the host computer system and the OS independent device
driver portion (col. 4, lines 36-39).
The appellant argues (brief, pages 9-10):
Hanson does not teach or suggest combining the GUI and
URL [uniform resource locator] information in order to
use a URL as a conversion means. Although Hanson, as
well as Venkatraman, disclose using URL information for
identifying an intranet/Internet location of a
peripheral device, the combined references do not teach
or suggest changing control setting values of the
device through the URL information. That is, nowhere
does Hanson or Venkatraman disclose or suggest managing
URL information and control information in
correspondence with each other, and/or converting the
URL information into predetermined control information,
as recited in independent claims 1, 3, 6 and 13.
The examiner responds (answer, page 16):
Appellant’s claims do not specifically define “control
information”. Both Venkatraman and Hanson define
devices via URLs (i.e.[,] to at least define location
of a device). Since a URL address must be mapped to a
unique IP number at a server (in this case, mapping
said URL to a device IP number), the IP number, along
with said mapping, can be interpreted as control
information associated with controlling a device.
Converting a URL to a device’s unique IP number can be
interpreted as managing URL information, and control
information.
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and
Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
1 As an example of the appellant’s URL containing control
information, the specification discloses that “if an URL of
“http://xxx/B600.html” is input, the URL interpretation
section 49 looks up in the management table 50 based on the URL,
thereby converting the URL into setup values to realize a process
of “reading image data at read resolution 600 dpi processed by
error diffusion method” (page 25).
5
prior art. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The examiner has not addressed the
appellant’s specification and the prior art and explained why, in
view of the specification and the prior art, one of ordinary
skill in the art reasonably would have considered the address
information of Venkatraman and Hanson to be control information
as that term is used by the appellant.1 We are not persuaded
that merely because a URL address must be mapped to a unique IP
number, the IP number along with the mapping is control
information.
The appellant argues that 1) “nowhere does Hanson or
Venkatraman disclose or suggest managing control information and
command information related to processing items that can be
processed by the image processing means in correspondence with
each other, and/or converting the command information into
predetermined control information, as recited in independent
Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
6
claims 8, 10 and 15", and 2) “neither Venkatraman nor Hanson
discloses the production and transmission of a list of processing
items processed by the image processing means” (brief, page 11).
The examiner does not respond to the first of these arguments.
The examiner’s response to the second argument is that
“Venkatraman[’s] Figure 3 (and column 3[,] lines 19-26) teaches a
list associated with a device URL. This list of items associated
with said device is processed and displayed to a user” (answer,
page 17). Venkatraman’s figure 3 shows a printer home page
having a box containing “printer name”, “administrator” and
“location”. We do not find in column 3, lines 19-26 a disclosure
of a list associated with a device URL. The examiner has not
established that the relied-upon disclosures would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, processing list
information generation means for relating command information
pieces to processing list information pieces and returning the
information pieces to a processing list information transfer
requester (claims 8 and 15) or an information terminal (claim 10)
if the processing list information transfer request is received.
The appellant argues, regarding claims 17-32, that
Venkatraman “does not teach or suggest that that [sic] the web
page provides resource request information related to processing
Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
7
items that can be processed by the device. Similarly, Hanson
does not teach or suggest this feature of the claimed invention”
(brief, page 13). The examiner argues that Venkatraman, at
column 3, lines 27-32, discloses an HTTP retrieval environment
(answer, page 13). That portion of Venkatraman discloses a web
page generation means for generating a web page, but does not
disclose that the web page has resource request information
related to processing items that can be processed by an image
processing means. In response to the appellant’s argument the
examiner relies upon his responses to the appellant’s previous
arguments (answer, page 17). The examiner does not explain, and
it is not apparent, how these responses indicate that the applied
references would have fairly suggested the argued claim
requirement to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellant’s claimed invention.
Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
8
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Venkatraman in view of Hanson is reversed.
REVERSED
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TJO:hh
Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
9
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037-3202